# Wind mills

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### D Hillberg

##### Well-Known Member
Wind farms kill birds, look ugly, obstruct air navigation, Do not make energy on demand, increase costs of energy, waste resources, divert money from better technologies that produce cheaper power. Remove the subsides and see it fail badly.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Wind farms kill birds, look ugly, obstruct air navigation, Do not make energy on demand, increase costs of energy, waste resources, divert money from better technologies that produce cheaper power. Remove the subsides and see it fail badly.
Yup, that just about sums it up.

BJC

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
They do kill a few birds, but not a vast amount. Most of the ones I have walked under lacked any visible corpses. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Most aircraft don't fly at turbine height. Turbines are definitely a bad idea near an airstrip.
Fossil power stations aren't happy about being started and stopped either. With a large distributed net of wind farms, power generation is smoothed out a lot.
Having been involved in a single, unsubsidised, turbine project, I'm wondering where you get the numbers that they aren't cost effective? Fossil fuel promoted propaganda? It does take around a decade to amortise the costs (in the UK), but after that it's almost all profit. No fuel costs to worry about. There is also the distinct possibility that energy prices will rise as fossil fuels are exhausted and become more costly to extract. What resouces do they waste? Energy payback is usually under a year. Are there any power generation schemes without subsidies? Turbines don't need subsidies to be profitable in the UK. Maybe that is different in the US, but they certainly aren't money pits, such as nuclear...

#### Highplains

##### Well-Known Member
The amount of oil consumed each year is incredibly insignificant, just a touch over one cubic mile. In the past 140 years less than 50 cubic miles has been consumed overall. This from a planet with a surface area of 196.9 million square miles. Spread evenly over the entire surface each year it would be a film thickness of 0.00033 inch thick. It would take 12 years at the present usage rate to be as thick as a single sheet of copier paper, and all the oil used over the past 140 years would only be as thick as 4 sheets. Oil usage just doesn’t make any significant impact on the climate.

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
Back in the 1990s I worked for a major cell phone company (now part of Verizon).

They had one person whose job, among other things, was to check for any airports in the area of a proposed new tower site. The towers had to meet the FAA regulations for obstructions to aerial navigation. Of course she used the FAA database, so it would pay to have your field registered with the FAA.

I would think that the same rules would apply to wind power companies.
I worked in the engineering side the cell industry for 10 years starting in the late 90's, one of my jobs was to submit sites for FAA clearance. I remember a 1D10T that kept trying to put a tall cell site of the approach end of KUAO 17, I watched a number of small farm strips kill sites. And the same rules apply to Wind Farms

#### mcrae0104

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
I'm wondering where you get the numbers that they aren't cost effective?
I actually have no idea about the relative costs, subsidies, etc. so I'll leave that to you guys to discuss.

However, I do have an acquaintance in the local utility company. The last time I spoke with him (10 years ago) we discussed at length the need to back up the wind power with equal capacity from other sources. Basically, you double the cost. As pictsidhe pointed out, these dino-powered plants are costly to start and stop, and they don't do so instantly. My acquaintance described the difficulties in matching the demand on the grid with variable wind power particularly when combined with the slower start/stop of coal and gas. The focus of his work at that time was on ways of storing surplus wind energy.

Those of you who have visited Leadville or have been out to climb CO's highest 14er may have seen Twin Lakes and the Mt. Elbert power/pump station, which stores energy for later use by pumping water to the higher of the two lakes. This has been done as a method of energy storage for a long time--centuries if not longer. The other methods they were looking at (at that time) were gigantic kinetic flywheels and compressed air. For compressed air, I believe he said they were using abandoned natural gas wells as the containers. It sounded very interesting but I haven't followed up to see what they're doing these days. This was of course before some guy with a funny name started building batteries and proposing gigantic arrays of them.

...and Joe, I'm sorry you're having to fight this fight. I enjoyed the biographical aspects of the article and envy what you've built out there.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
There's a pumped power station at Dinorwig in Wales. Built before any wind turbines to help cope with millions of kettles being turned on at the same time due to national tv scheduling.
Demand is also a PITA for power companies...
Thanks to supply and demand, fossil fuel prices have been steadily rising. Using more won't help that, however you dress it up.

#### Pops

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
There is a 11 foot vein of coal a thousand feet under my chair where I am setting at this time that goes from eastern part of Ky about 1/2 of WV and about 40 miles west of the Ohio River in eastern Ohio up to the western part of PA. Also lots of NG and Oil wells in the same area. I am burning NG from a NG/Oil well about 100 yds from my house to heat my house and hanger. When the well was first drilled in 1990 it was producing 750 barrels a day for many years. Now the oil is down but now is still a very good NG producing well.
About 500 yds from my house there is a location were they hand dug an oil well in about 1862. About 15 miles east of me at Burning Springs an oil well was dug and sold oil a couple years before the so called first oil well in PA in 1859. There was natural oil and tar pits at Burning Springs and a few miles North at the Richey mines area. Huge amount of flint in the Richey mines area. Were the indians got the flint for arrow heads in this part of the eastern U.S.

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
They do kill a few birds, but not a vast amount. Most of the ones I have walked under lacked any visible corpses. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Most aircraft don't fly at turbine height. Turbines are definitely a bad idea near an airstrip.
Fossil power stations aren't happy about being started and stopped either. With a large distributed net of wind farms, power generation is smoothed out a lot.
Having been involved in a single, unsubsidised, turbine project, I'm wondering where you get the numbers that they aren't cost effective? Fossil fuel promoted propaganda? It does take around a decade to amortise the costs (in the UK), but after that it's almost all profit. No fuel costs to worry about. There is also the distinct possibility that energy prices will rise as fossil fuels are exhausted and become more costly to extract. What resouces do they waste? Energy payback is usually under a year. Are there any power generation schemes without subsidies? Turbines don't need subsidies to be profitable in the UK. Maybe that is different in the US, but they certainly aren't money pits, such as nuclear...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bat-killings-by-wind-energy-turbines-continue/

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
I don't think registering the airport at this point will make much difference. The FAA review process does not always work in favor of airports or protect airports because FAA determinations do not have any legal teeth. The airport is responsible for protecting it's access through zoning laws. FAA determinations have been overturned in court so sometimes they can't even offer a determination that a proposed structure will interfere with an airport.

Anyway, back to what I said earlier. Joe is an army of 1. It will be a tough road because if the first proposal is blocked there will be a second, third, etc.

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Not ideal, but I think a Cub pilot could fly between them (day/VFR, good visibility)
They can't put them that close together. I don't know the separation they specify, but they need a large spacing for efficient operation.
The rule for airplanes is 500 feet from structures, except when takeoff or landing.

Edit, says here 3 to 10 wind turbine diameters separation:https://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/policy/planning_statements_and_supplementary_planning_guidance/pps18/pps18_annex1/pps18_annex1_wind/pps18_annex1_technology/pps18_annex1_spacing.htm

#### lr27

##### Well-Known Member
Wind farms kill birds, look ugly, obstruct air navigation, Do not make energy on demand, increase costs of energy, waste resources, divert money from better technologies that produce cheaper power. Remove the subsides and see it fail badly.
The same could be said about skyscrapers. I'm sure coal and oil fired electric plants also kill critters, and we know they damage the environment. We've seen what can happen if nuclear power isn't done right. We don't get to choose a source of electricity that's completely benign. Remove ALL the energy subsidies and see what happens, or it's not a valid test. I include some of the funding for the armed forces, which I suspect would be deployed a bit differently if not for concern about oil.

The amount of oil consumed each year is incredibly insignificant, just a touch over one cubic mile. In the past 140 years less than 50 cubic miles has been consumed overall. This from a planet with a surface area of 196.9 million square miles. Spread evenly over the entire surface each year it would be a film thickness of 0.00033 inch thick. It would take 12 years at the present usage rate to be as thick as a single sheet of copier paper, and all the oil used over the past 140 years would only be as thick as 4 sheets. Oil usage just doesn’t make any significant impact on the climate.
I suggest that it depends on WHAT is that thick. I'm sure if you painted the entire earth white, to a thickness of even .001", there would be significant effects. The figures I've seen for Mt. Pinatubo are something like 1.2 cubic miles of stuff ejected, though most of it fell nearby in a short period of time. From what I understand, the significant impact on the weather was from 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide, which dropped average global temperatures by about 1 degree F for over a year. Just for comparison, 15 million tons of oil would be about .004 cubic miles. I could give you the volume of sulphur dioxide, but that would be a bit disingenuous, because it's a gas. In 1815, Mt. Tambora erupted. An estimated 25 to 35 cubic miles of stuff were ejected but, of course, most of that fell back down. CO2 doesn't fall back down. In any case, 1816 became known as "eighteen hundred and froze to death. Very cold weather, crop failures, famine, etc. were reported in Asia, Europe, and North America. So I don't think your intuitive argument based on how much material was used up holds. It doesn't take much if it's the wrong kind of stuff.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

None of this means that the wind development people should block Joe's runway.
Not ideal, but I think a Cub pilot could fly between them day/VFR.
They can't put them that close together. I don't know the separation they specify, but they need a large spacing for efficient operation.
The rule for airplanes is 500 feet from structures, except when takeoff or landing.
As long as he never flies when his airstrip is downwind of the turbines in a breeze. Don't they cut in at 4 or 5 meters per second? That's about 9 to 11 mph. If they're putting in a wind turbine development, I suspect that means most of the time. I'm not sure how close they have to be in order to cause a turbulence problem. Wasn't there supposed to be at least one that would actually be in the way?

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
I cant see a turbine creating turbulence. They extract energy and slow the air. It would be like hitting my own glider wake when circling (can barely feel it). And no need to fly that close anyway.

#### lr27

##### Well-Known Member
I cant see a turbine creating turbulence. They extract energy and slow the air. It would be like hitting my own glider wake when circling (can barely feel it). And no need to fly that close anyway.
This looks pretty swirly to me:

#### lr27

##### Well-Known Member
BTW, it's well known that the theoretical limit for energy extraction for a wind turbine is 59 percent. Real ones leave a lot more than that, of course. So if you take some of that remaining energy and make the air rotate, it might be a problem. Especially if it isn't evenly distributed.

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
We are having a real problem here in Kansas. http://www.parsonssun.com/news/
Joe,
Here is the tool the FAA uses for separation evaluation for wind farms from airports.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showWtBuildOutToolFormhttps://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showWtBuildOutToolForm

You NEED to get your Strip listed with the FAA ASAP if it's not already listed. Also get all of your neighbors who have a farm strip to get them listed

#### BBerson

##### Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
This looks pretty swirly to me:
View attachment 75396
Wouldn't bother me to fly down that row of turbines. They will always be direct into the wind.
They look like a quarter mile apart if 300 feet diameter. I land within 20 feet of trees.

#### Bill-Higdon

##### Well-Known Member
I don't think registering the airport at this point will make much difference. The FAA review process does not always work in favor of airports or protect airports because FAA determinations do not have any legal teeth. The airport is responsible for protecting it's access through zoning laws. FAA determinations have been overturned in court so sometimes they can't even offer a determination that a proposed structure will interfere with an airport.

Anyway, back to what I said earlier. Joe is an army of 1. It will be a tough road because if the first proposal is blocked there will be a second, third, etc.
I disagree here, I watched the FAA SMACK DOWN as in remove or else get hit with huge fines some cell sites and buildings like the one by the San Diego Air Port.

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
I disagree here, I watched the FAA SMACK DOWN as in remove or else get hit with huge fines some cell sites and buildings like the one by the San Diego Air Port.
About 1-1/2 yrs ago I was at an IA renewal and saw a powerpoint presentation given by FAA legal in Chicago about this very thing --windmills encroaching on airports. Can probably find the powerpoint presentation on line. The FAA said they have limited power to restrict this from happening. The FAA has to do an impact study but ultimately the airport has to rely on zoning laws to keep the area around the airport free of hazards encroaching on the airport. Zoning laws are relatively easy to change, x2 when a company lines someones pocket with \$.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Yup, still happening.

BJC